Hi, I’m new to this community, but certainly not to the hobby. I know we’ve all been disappointed in our grades from PSA on occasion, but I just received a card from PSA today, 2/15/20, and I MUST show how poorly PSA did with this card.
I submitted an Expedition, Holo, Charizard (6/165). The card is beautiful, and at minimum a PSA 9. I considered going the economy (previously called regular) but after looking at every PSA 9 I could find, I decided this was a possible 10, so I sent it Express (8-day) service level.
They received my shipment on the 8th of January, and I just received it today. Though annoying, that’s not the problem. My card received a PSA 5. Please allow me to provide photos of the card, along with a few examples from the same set that received higher grades.
Here are examples of a PSA 5, 6, and 7, respectively. And all with new labels, and from the same set.
This is absurd, and completely unacceptable. How IS THIS POSSIBLE?!? We must demand better consistency if this is the “gold standard” of evaluating our valuable collectibles.
Thank you for reading my rant, and please feel free to ask any questions. I am happy to add more photos if anyone would like them.
When a card looks mint but receives a grade such as that there is almost always a dent or crease somewhere. Hard to see from the pictures, but I would go over very carefully and see if you can find a small dent on the surface as that is most likely why it got the 5.
I literally went over this card with a flashlight at all sorts of angles (would be happy to show them if you’re interested), and there is nothing. The card literally has that one (bottom left) corner that has a small amount of whiting, but that’s it.
Appreciate your input. I mean, yes, a 10 was a long shot (though have seen worse 10s) but I spent the extra money for 8-day service, waited over 6 weeks, explained in my notes why I decided on the express due to its potential value, and then I get this?! They should be embarrassed by their inconsistency.
Cards receive low grades for many different reasons. Just because one 5 doesn’t look like another doesn’t mean one has been misgraded. I agree with @mojotbone, it’s likely there is a small crease, dent, or something else on the card that lowers it to a 5. I’ve had cards like this as well where I initially thought they were graded overly harshly but I eventually found the flaw. Took me quite awhile, but I did.
That being said, PSA is not infallible. Even if you’re somehow totally right and they just threw a 5 on this card for no reason (I doubt this significantly), you shouldn’t get all up in arms about it. Occasionally mistakes are made. Crack and resubmit or send it in for review if you think it’s egregious. That’s just how it works.
Say I were to send it back in, which I’m sure many people have, and it gets a substantially better grade, shouldn’t that add to the massive amount of evidence they need better standards and/or review? And, honestly, it’s pretty egregious for a company that touts that they’re the absolute standard, and has graded over a million Pokemon cards, yet still doesn’t update their site with visual examples of PSA 1-10 for them.
Using a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card to demonstrate grading standards for everything they grade is a little ridiculous. They should at least add some PTCG examples, too.
My biggest complaint is that I have personally graded cards in had (with dents like you’re mentioning) in hand and they have better grades than the card I’m complaining about.
But I will look over this card again under magnification to see what I can find. Thanks.
They have been receiving 68,000 cards per week on average. Mistakes will be made. They have a review service for a reason. This is not specifically a PSA problem, issues like this are inherent in any situation where a human is evaluating condition. This is all assuming you haven’t overlooked some issue
We can all agree PSA has problems. But now you’re really getting into the nitpicking. We hear this stuff literally all the time here, and it just gets pointless after awhile. Yesterday we had a thread on whether PSA was somehow conspiring to give low grades to high value cards. A couple weeks ago it was that PSA’s grading standards have somehow magically gotten harsher. A year or two ago it was that they were too lenient and were giving too many 10s out, or that they were somehow damaging a ton of cards.
Again, I doubt your card is a 9-10 quality card that someone just slapped a 5 on for no reason. But even if it is, to be completely honest it’s not a big deal. PSA is a subjective 3rd party condition assessment. Every now and then something doesn’t work out. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to partake in their service.
Appreciate your input, but you do know that their standards HAVE actually gotten harsher, recently, right? Not by magic, of course. But they have literally told me this on the phone. That’s one of the main reasons people prefer a new label 10 vs an old label. Because the old one runs the risk of not getting that 10. This is pretty common knowledge amongst people who use their services often.
And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I hope you’re not telling the person who suggested PSA has increased their rigor that they’re wrong, or sarcastically joked they “magically” made some changes. They actually have.
But, again, I never suggested a conspiracy or anything outside of inconsistency and no clearly-defined standards for cards other than baseball cards.
They haven’t “magically” gotten harsher. They are harsher, 100%. I’m about to do a video on the grades I got from opening pack fresh Holos from gym heroes, jungle, fossil, rocket, and neo 1st Edition on camera. The difference between card grading standards between 2XXXXXXXX cert cards and 4XXXXXX cert cards is night and day… to deny it is just ignorant.
“Harsher” is a vague term. While I agree that their bulk service has become more critical, that doesn’t mean everything that isn’t 4xxx cert is now less than.
Also if people want to accept that premise, then all 4xxx certs are going to be a premium. The more frequent the “I only want 4xxx cert” meme becomes, the higher the price.
Ultimately PSA has consistent enough standards. I have plenty of 0xx, 1xx, 2xx, 4xx certs that are interchangeable. Its worth noting as I did in the video about difference in perception of damage. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
No, it’s not common knowledge. It is an instagram conspiracy theory that has taken hold because surprise surprise, people think their cards are in better condition that the grades PSA gives.
I am calling total bullshit on the fact that a representative from the largest third-party grading company in the world told you that their grading standards are fluid and that the bar for achieving a certain grade has changed. That straight-up did not happen and if it did, that representative would be disciplined or fired as soon as a QA rep reviewed the recording.
The fact that there are weak 10s and strong 9s is well-accepted. PSA graders are human and occasionally one may grade harsher than another. Hell, even within submissions there can be variation on grading. The fact that you may have got a harsher grader for one submission does not legitimate a company-wide directive to change grading standards across time. Nor does the fact that someone got a tough order and can cherry-pick some 4xxx certs and compare them to 2xxx certs. With some quick research I could grab some cards from my PSA collection and make the argument that cards finished on Wednesdays are graded harsher than those finished on Mondays. I could switch up the cards and make the exact opposite argument.
The only people who can make a claim on the level that some in this thread are arguing for are the business-level submitters like Ludkins who submit hundreds if not thousands of cards per week. I had a good conversation with Charlie about this just last weekend, and the conclusion was that while there may be small variation across graders, there has been no broad-scale change in grading standards across time.
I’ve gotten consistent grades from 1994 through this past January and I have many more newer grades than old. Somebody mentioned this being a recurring theme. That’s true. It’s been going on for 25 years lol.
Now for the OPs post. One of two things happened. Either a typo occurred or the op overlooked a binder dent or the like. Many of those are very hard to see.
PS…send the card to me still encased and I’ll put on my detective hat.
I’m sorry you’re getting so upset, but facts are facts. That conversation took place regarding a 1st edition base Charizard that I was expecting a certain grade, and it got 1 point lower. I got to have a long conversation with the rep, and she took the card to their head grader for a detailed explanation of why it received a certain grade, and THAT THEY HAVE RAISED THEIR STANDARDS FOR ACHIEVING CERTAIN GRADES. It makes no difference to me if you believe me or not, but people should be aware there CAN BE a significant difference between an “old 10” and a “new 10.” Otherwise, we’d all buy PSA 10s on the spot without looking at the card. And I don’t think many people would do that now (especially if they see it’s the old label).
It’s sad that you yourself have examples of inconsistency in grades enough to make a case for some arbitrary bias, yet you attribute that to human error. When that’s the very business you’re paying for; standards and consistency! That’s insane.
Also, if you can’t understand that PSA is incentivized to make certain grades harder to get, i.e., make grading standards more rigorous (and how that also can increase demand, the value of cards, and the money they receive due to the cards’ supposed values), then you either have your head in the sand, or don’t understand business and how controlling supply and demand will benefit the business. They ARE NOT an “uninterested third party.” You MUST understand this if you have any business sense whatsoever. Why do you think BGS specifically uses that fact against them, and states that the value doesn’t matter to them? That’s much closer to a third party who is there to evaluate condition and authenticity. You do understand that with PSA, regardless of the card’s value, it takes the same resources to grade it, so, asking for more money depending on the card’s assumed value is already borderline a scam. They will upcharge if necessary due to value, but never will they reduce the price (even if they didn’t meet the deadline the customer paid for) if the card happens to be low enough for an economy service, etc. They’ve literally created a conflict of interest between the customer wanting to get a good deal and the company wanting to capitalize off rarer cards being sent in. Can you follow all that?
Try to digest that, maybe think on it a bit, and, if necessary, ask someone if there are parts you don’t understand. Or I can try to break it down a bit more if you’re not quite grasping these basic business principles.
Anyway, while I don’t appreciate you calling me a liar, it was an inspiring, lively conversation, and I can always appreciate those.
